w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Joy Ibrahim & Another v/s Sai Biotech Limited

    Compensation Application No. 22 of 2000
    Decided On, 09 May 2001
    At, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission New Delhi
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. R.K. ANAND & THE HONOURABLE MR. R.L. SUDHIR
    By, MEMBERS
    For the Applicants: N.M. Varghese, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.


Judgment Text
R.K. Anand, Member

1. The applicants have made an application under .Section 12B of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) stating therein, that they made a deposit of Rs. 15,000/- with the respondent, lured by high interest rates, offered on such deposits, by the respondent and in lieu thereof, a fixed deposit receipt bearing No. 025DB00151, for a period of one year, was issued to them. It has been further mentioned that on maturity of the FDR, the applicants approached the respondent for refund of the amount of Rs. 17,412/- inclusive of interest accrued thereon. Their grievance is that although a Cheque No. 309813 dated 17.9.1999 of Rs. 5,000/- in favour of Smt. Elizebeth J. Abraham, the applicant No. 2 drawn on the East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Branch of the Syndicate Bank was issued by the respondent and the same was deposited for clearance in the Green Park Extension Branch of the Canara Bank, it was dishonoured and returned with the remarks ‘insufficient funds’. Likewise, in accordance with the mutual agreement between them and the respondent, an amount of Rs. 2,400/- was also to be paid while the balance Rs. 10,000/- was to be treated as a fixed deposit for another period of two years, but the agreed amount was not paid by the respondent. It has been further complained that although a legal notice was also sent to the respondent for refund of the amount, there was no response from the respondent and the amount was also not refunded.

2. A notice dated 24.1.2000 in respect of the aforesaid application of the applicants, was sent to the respondent by registered post, the respondent neither entered appearance nor filed a reply thereto. As despite sufficient opportunity, the respondent failed to file a reply, it was set ex- parts vide Commission’s order of 16.8.2000. Thus, the claim of compensation made by the applicants has remained uncontested and the applicants can be said to have made out a case of unfair trade practices by the respondent. We accordingly, direct that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- deposited by the app

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
licants may be refunded within six weeks with interest @ 12% for the entire period the amount has remained with the respondent. The respondent is also directed to file an affidavit by way of compliance. C.A. allowed.
O R